SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING (BUDGET WORKSHOP)

Will the clerk please take roll?

Good evening. Council Member Barrett.

Present.

Council Member Delgado. Present. Council Member Means. Present. Mayor Innegren. Present And the record will reflect that Dr. Castro has not yet joined us.

Next item is for public comment, do we have any speakers?

No Mr. Mayor, I've received no speaker cards this evening. Okay

thank you. Next is presentation action discussion, Item 5A is a general fund stability call, oh sorry, Mr. Gagahena

Thank you mayor and council. Yes, tonight is our special budget workshop on general fund sustainability. We have a slide presentation to show you so we'll get that queued up. So, Mayor and Council for tonight we'll go over a handful of items. I'll give you a brief introduction overview of tonight's discussion then I'll hand it over to Ms. Deaver to talk about our long-term financial plan provide some overview of our general fund revenues expenditures our subsidy funds our conservative budget development and things we've done in the past as well as our reserve fund status to date So how did we get here? As you may recall, last August we held a special meeting on financial strategies workshop where we would discuss at length the long-term financial plan and possible options in how to address those in the future.

We talked about things like cost control measures and also revenue enhancement and financing options. One of those included a park assessment levy, which we have been discussing this past year. We also had you identified an enhanced infrastructure financing district option as well, which I'll be presenting to you at a future council meeting date. So those are things that we were considering and as part of the City Council goals as well to address these other enhancement financing options.

Now last month, we had a discussion about the park assessment levy and one of the things that you directed staff to do is to present to you other general fund expenditures and costs. And so those are things we'll be talking about this evening And also provide you any information on any previous program or service budget reductions that we've already done in the past.

So for this evening, as I mentioned besides the overview on the general fund and past reductions and the reserve funds. One of the things I did want to point out is there are not going to be really any specific reductions that are going to be identified this evening. And those are for several reasons. Our current fiscal year 25-26 budget has not yet closed So we cannot share with you if we have a surplus or not. Those are things that are still being assessed We are we have just entered into the we are going to be entering into our next our second year two-year budget And the actuals and revenues expenditures obviously have not yet been used for that budget and yet not yet available And so in terms of possible funding reductions for let's say Beginning fiscal year 27 28 and 20 29 for our next two-year cycle.

We really want to have next year's budget actuals Available as much as possible So we could better assess areas that we may need to make adjustments on or not And then the last part of this, or the next thing that's on here is as you know you've identified City Council priorities for this current two year budget cycle and without knowing what your city council priorities whether or not they are the same or whether they could change for We'd like to receive your direction first on what those are before making any specific recommendations of items to make adjustments on.

And again, as your city manager I could make some recommendations and what those could be but again the priority is to making sure that I know what your expectations and goals are first for taking action. And then, you know, the more in-depth discussion that will take place on these budget adjustments will really happen in our future budget workshop. Which again, historically we've done this like in May of every year. We're going to kind of change this around going forward and in terms of having this budget workshop earlier Ideally during the same time as our City Council retreat or really close to that timeframe Such as January February next year so that we could identify your city council goals talk about the budget priorities go in depth in terms of Our services our programs any adjustments that would need to be made also having a discussion at the same time about our capital improvement Program projects, so you can also prioritize those.

So this budget workshop again will happen earlier in the budget process cycle but again it would be to prepare for the next two year budget cycle. And again, that is estimated to take place in January or February. So this evening really just sets us up for kind of an overview of what those adjustments could be outside of park maintenance which has been the focus of our discussion again this past year and more so in the last month.

But yeah, so tonight we'll kind of give you an idea of things that we could consider And so that's kind of the purpose of tonight's meeting. All right. So one of the key takeaways for tonight as well is that budget reductions may not be enough. But let me first start off by saying that when we are evaluating the city's financial condition, it's really important I think for you and our residents to recognize that we're experiencing a period of significant growth right now.

We've had a lot of projects that have been on hold or were impacted by COVID, and many of these projects have recently been completed or are currently underway. I don't think prior councils or prior periods in our city history has seen this type of project taking place all at the same time. I do want to just recognize that because that has meant that we have been using funds, some of our reserves for those purposes that again in previous years weren't ready to be enacted. And so that's why I think it's important for you and the public to just recognize that.

Going back to budget reductions and why they may not be enough. As we know, as the city continues to grow increasing costs associated with personnel, infrastructure, maintenance all those things continue to rise and other operational obligations are putting additional pressure on the general fund. One of the things to also preface this on with regards to the park assessment is, you know, residents rate our parks very, very high. Right? Very good condition.

We do a lot of effort into making our parks very usable and appearance-wise they look great. They're maintained on a regular basis. And so there may not be a perceived existing problem with our parks, although we've been subsidizing it for the better part of the past 30 years. We've obviously been subsidizing with the general fund and that's why we are able to keep our parks in pristine shape.

So in terms of other things to consider, so even if we get to a point in a future budget meeting or budget workshop about other adjustments that we make. Again it still may not be enough at that point. We could run a very lean organization and we could provide programs and services you know at the very basic level But it still may warrant other types of service adjustments. It could still call for project deferrals or elimination of other projects that may be in your priorities, or in the queue in our capital improvement program.

We'd also still need to continue to look for other possible revenue streams. You know, we could hope for an increased economic period of prosperity and we have good and very positive sales tax numbers. Obviously we have a bunch of housing projects coming online which would help us generate more property tax. But you know, there could be other things we may still need to consider because things are our current situation with our deficit may not be enough in terms of our future structural deficit.

And then as you know economic development has been a huge focus for the City Council and for staff as well And so having that economic development strategic plan as we implement it currently and going forward will also help us in terms of generating new sales tax sources, job creation, other areas that we can look to again address our financial situation. Again, the City Council goals are what we look to as staff for guidance in terms of what we work on and projects we deliver to the community based on your priorities.

But then if we are looking for future adjustments in the budget I really want to start off with finding out any changes to your priorities in the future and starting with that first And then the reality is we may not be able to do everything we want to do. Obviously, there's things that we need to do or there may be regulatory things we need to do to keep things operating and servicing the community but those types of decisions again I would defer to a future budget workshop that we can address it in more detail.

So with that, to continue on the presentation I'll hand it off to our Finance Director Ms. Deaver

Thank you Mr. Gagahena Good evening City Mayor and Council Members Just a quick overview of long-term financial plan we have discussed in the previous meeting So the long-term financial plan was first introduced in May 2024 and is updated annually. The most recent update uses the fiscal year 2026-27 mid cycle budget as the baseline. Key revenue assumptions include 2% increase for property tax, 3% increase for franchise fees, 4% increase for transient occupancy tax and a 2% increase for other revenue.

It is important to note that the future property tax revenue from current and planned development project is not included in this projections due to unknown timing and property values. On the other side, for expenditure side, assumption include 3% cost of living increase And 6% increase for health insurance, 3% increase for other operating expense based on CPI January 2026 rate.

And 4.2% increase for capital projects based on the construction cost index. Based on these assumptions, the city is projected to experience a structural deficit beginning in fiscal year 29-30. If the proposed park assessment increase is approved by property owners, the structural deficit would be delayed by approximately two years to fiscal year 2031-32. Now we are moving on to general fund revenue General fund revenue consists of taxes, franchise fees, charges for service, investment earnings, licenses and fines, use of money and other revenue and cost plan allocations.

Tax revenue includes property taxes, sales tax, transient occupancy tax and vehicle license fees Excuse me, vehicle license fees in lieu of property tax. Franchise fees are assessed to utility companies for use of city's infrastructures for cable TV, gas, electricity and solid waste. Charges for services are from user fees such as recreation fees, business inspections and other administrative fees Investment earnings also brings additional funding to general fund.

Other fees include licenses from business and animal, and parking citations. Use of money is from property lease facility use fees and event contributions. Other revenue may include grants and reimbursement from other agencies. Cost plan allocation is a way to recover general fund cost from other special funds. This may include the staff costs and consultant fees.

Approximately 68% of general fund revenue are coming from taxes, and 18% is from franchise fees, charges for service and investment Remaining 14% are from other revenue sources. So charges for services for fiscal year 20, 24 and 24 include one-time administrative fees from new waste management contract and other one-time fees. So you see slightly increase in fiscal year 24, 25.

Breakdown of taxes, 7.4 million in property taxes which is about 41.3%, and 5.2 million or 28.9% in vehicle license fee in lieu of property tax 4.9 million or 27.2% in sales tax and transient occupancy tax takes up $475,000. The property tax revenue for fiscal year 2024-25 include additional residual payment of $350,000 compared to fiscal year 2023-2024. And this additional payment is not calculated into fiscal year 2025-26 or 2026-27 budget.

Now we are moving to general fund expenditures. General fund expenditures include the salary and benefit, police services, contractual services, utilities, intergovernmental expense and other expenditures. Salary and benefit include employee salary, insurances and retirement costs. Police services are contracted with Ventura County Sheriff's Office. This includes staff costs including salary, benefits and other overhead costs.

Vehicle lease, mileage and the maintenance costs are also included. Contractual services include property and landscape maintenance, recreation program and event contractors Intergovernmental includes inter-fund subsidy transfers to Park Maintenance Fund, Community Development Fund, Engineering Fund. Cities separately request for fund transfer to cover landscape maintenance district to subsidize certain districts in December.

Other expenditures include program supplies, including office supplies, maintenance supplies, employee training, printing and postage. It also includes fuel charges and equipment charges. The table shows history of past two fiscal years actual plus current and coming fiscal years. The salary and the benefits shows a spike in fiscal year 24-25. This is due to additional payment of 3.5 million to reduce future obligation of retirement cost to CalPERS.

Fiscal year 25-26 budget for police include 40 hours deputy for high street, in addition to typical increases. Contractual service for fiscal year 2025-2026 shows increase from prior year actual. It is hard to compare actual to budget, however some of these increases are due to maintenance needs... excuse me, due to increased maintenance costs for facilities City estimate higher budget for maintenance needs, but some of the maintenance are completed by staff or staff without hiring contractor or differ in the maintenance. So quite a difference observed from budget to actual.

In addition, property maintenance on the city-owned property has been moved from successor housing fund to general fund due to funding issues starting fiscal year 2025-2026. Community Development Fund is a general fund subsidy fund. The funding sources are building permits, reimbursement from developer and grants. The city contract with Charles Abbott & Associates for Building and Safety Division. The cost of this service is fully offset by building permit fees.

The staff charges for planning division is reimbursed by developers. However, majority of their time is non-billable or working on other items rather than the development project so not all costs are recoverable. Engineering Fund is also a general fund subsidy fund. The primary revenue sources are development plan review and inspection services. The contractual services for this service are fully offset by its revenue.

The staff time for this division also includes non-bearable hours for staff, therefore additional contribution from general funds is typically needed. The primary revenue sources for park maintenance fund is from assessment levy. The large portion of revenue is used to pay for contractual services to maintain 20 parks. The assessment levy barely cover the contractual services and utilities or daily maintenance by staff, and other expense are not covered by the revenue.

The engineer's report explained that the city is required to contribute 25% of total cost. However, the general fund contribution is larger than actual revenue and it has been about 50% of general fund. General fund is contributing about 50% of total expenditure. The city has long-standing practice of conservative budget. To balance budget, the city has explored many things including no cost of living adjustment to employee, froze or downgraded positions, additional payment to CalPERS retirement system Reduced or eliminated travel and education expenses.

Deferred non-essential maintenance and purchases. Replaced turf, installed irrigation control system and LED lights. Reduced landscape maintenance activities. Reduced public safety costs and enforcement activities. Deferred capital and maintenance projects. And eliminated off-site file storage costs, this is most recently done. So we are moving to reserve fund status.

So just a little history of reserve fund. Back in October 2008, City Council policy was established to save $3 million in the general fund reserve. In May 2018 this policy was updated to 20% of general fund expenditures as emergency and contingency reserve fund and separate account was established And this reserve also include $1 million in unreserved fund for general fund.

October 2020, the city added additional $500,000 to economic uncertainty reserve City Council has an option to increase this reserve up to $1 million. But as of today, $500,000 is in the reserve fund. The city also historically used an endowment fund and a special fund in addition to these established reserve funds. The library construction has started and the special project funds and endowment funds balance is drawing down to the historical low in past 10 years.

The city still maintain approximately 90% of general fund expenditures as estimated balance as of June 30, 2027. Government Finance Officer Association recommends no less than two months of regular general fund operating reserve or expenditures. This is about 17% of annual operating budget. Also, Moody's AAA rating for bond issuance requires 35% of general fund reserve We should also consider cash flow risk when we are establishing a reserve policy.

The concern for general fund revenue is distribution of majority of revenue sources, which is the property tax. The property tax revenue is coming In end of December and the end of April. Vehicle license fee in lieu of property tax is not coming until January for half of cost, half of revenue and other half is coming in May. Sales taxes posted monthly but sales tax revenue is two months behind from state.

Transient occupancy tax is quarterly basis. And the franchise tax, franchise fees are coming in either quarterly or annually basis. Just for some information, as of end of November 2025, city has received only 13% of general fund estimated revenue. But we had to run five months of operations. So keeping higher reserve funds for general funds is recommended So this concludes my presentations. And we are available for any questions, additional questions you may have.

All right. Thank you. Do we have any questions? I know we have a lot of questions. I'd like to start. Tom, go ahead. Take it off.

I didn't think I raised my hand, but sure. Didn't have to. Right? To put my questions into context, I just want to thank city staff for everything they've put together here and that they've been doing over the years to try to make this budget fit and serve our public. I guess I'd like to start with the, we put a new impact fee schedule in place and Mr. Gargahanga, I think you might be able to answer this one where future library expansion for instance is being accounted for from that impact fee and every fee has a portion of it apportioned to different places. Can you talk about how that's collected?

How that's stored or saved How restricted those funds are compared to some of the development agreements that Moorpark used to operate under?

Sure. Thank you, Council Member Meath. Yeah, those impact fees that again were approved a few years ago were established to dedicate those impact fees for specific uses and then we collect them at certain stages of that development process. Typically it's usually at the very beginning And then once we collect those fees, we use those fees again to determine could we use them for a specific project that's intended for its use if there is enough funding there or combined with other sources of funds. So that's how it could be actually utilized. But typically yes, they're restricted kind of funds impact fees that have to be used for specific purposes As opposed to what we have developed in prior years, which are through development agreements where some of those impact fees are also outlined and identified.

Now we have a sort of consistent schedule with those fees are which helps the development community know how much it would cost to do business in Moorpark. And that's the purpose of why we have those impact fees standardized and established Now through a development agreement process there could still be negotiations Available so that we could negotiate some of those impact fees Because some of those major projects may have other impacts That can't capture at all, you know on our standardized fee schedule But there could also be negotiations of using fees that could contribute to the general fund that may be unrestricted. But again, moving towards a more standardized way with how we apply the fees, that's less and less available to the city unless, again, there's a major project where something like an impact fee could be collected for general fund use.

That's generally not how we are moving forward in our development approach

So big picture the impact fees that we're collecting now with which I think is terrific We voted for it. It tells our developer partners Where the money is going and justifies those expenses however, the counterpoint or not the counterpoint but the consequence of that would be a We are likely to have less flexibility with the dollars that we're collecting moving forward. That's correct. Got it, thank you.

I think that covers that one. I just want to clarify on page 2, it's mentioned and you'd mention in your report that spending additional reductions to city programs services may be considered but expenditure reductions alone may not be sufficient to fully address council's anticipated structural deficit. Capture that for a moment. That would ultimately be policy decisions, right? We could meet that structural deficit with reductions if as a council and it was the right thing to do for the people of Moorpark but those are going to get to be tougher and tougher decisions. Is that what that comment should be read as?

That's right, Council Member Means. I mean ultimately it is your policy decision and you can make those and decide on items so that we could address the deficit. Correct.

And to that end this council and previous councils over the last six, eight, ten years have been doing...have been deploying more dollars into projects than what we had seen historically before that. Is that accurate?

Yeah, I was saying the last three to five years we've definitely been deploying more dollars. More so than I think in prior years because a lot of projects have either come online or are currently underway. Got it.

And then as those funds have been deployed and our citizens have been able to use and enjoy the benefits that we've employed, am I also reading it correctly that we are now gaining less interest not just because interest rates have gone down but because we have a smaller pool of funds that is gaining interest? That's having a meaningful impact on our reserves, is that correct?

Exactly exactly obviously we have a set of council goes a lot of projects. We want to get done But then that's putting pressure on the general fund I

appreciate it Moving slightly to the not slightly moving significantly to the forecasting because all of this is based on on forecast actuals and forecasts sometimes meet, sometimes don't. I know that we as a council over the past few years have put a lot of emphasis into economic development with the anticipation that the investments that we have made will lead to increased sales tax revenue for instance perhaps additional population encouragement for building and development economic development.

I see that we are in the forecast showing a 2% inflation In the in Texas that's property tax and sales tax. I'm curious to know that seems to me when we look at the Overall inflationary factors as quoted in the assumption it seems to be that We may not have built in any sort of forecast for forward-looking economic development impacts even though we have spent the dollars on the investment such as you know High Street and additional positions. Can you speak a little bit to if that's in the forecast, and whether or not it should be in the forecast when we're looking at a long-term financial plan?

Yeah, that's a great point Council Member Means. I think with economic development it's really hard to at times forecast the economic impact because typically involves economic development impact studies whether or not you know this project or this strategy is going to bear fruit to increase sales tax for instance and so it's a bit of a challenge to include that in the forecast But having a strategic plan in place in our economic development area to focus on, I think is always better to have than not have so that we could be more strategic and targeted in our approach and how we could increase those types of revenue sources for the city to increase in the future.

Yeah no disagreement there. I'll keep it to questions for now but If we are looking to, if we have invested these dollars and we voted to invest those dollars. And we hope it has an impact, but we're not certain of it so we haven't included in the forecast. But yet, we have other factors that we've chosen to include in the forecast that we haven't necessarily intentionally tried to capture.

I guess the crux of the question is, is our forecast oversimplified and does it need more detail to have more accuracy for the big decisions that we're looking to make here?

Yeah, I mean, I think our forecast provides inputs that are generally used to look at long-term estimates. So we kind of use those variables in place and assumptions. We could consider other factors, perhaps. And that's something we could take a look at because if there are actual impacts that we could quantify for instance on a specific project or a company that we could anticipate coming into Moorpark Then you know those are things we could we could You know, we could forecast and include in there but we'd have to take a look at that

Yeah, and the quality of our forecast becomes super important. We'll talk about it more in discussion There's a on page three It talks about how the specific budget recommend reduction recommendations are not included in this report Because fiscal year has not yet been closed. So it's too early to reliably project actual revenues and expenditures for fiscal year 2026-2027 That makes sense to me Until it's closed you don't know what happened, right? We only have a 2020 vision However, we're being asked to forecast and potentially put a fee increase on the docket for the voters and the taxpayers based on our forecast. If we can't reliably estimate what we are going to do just this year especially since last meeting we approved a mid-year budget forecast if at any time during the year this should be the time that we have the most clarity at least in the moment where What was that, Wednesday?

We're less than a week away from saying yes this is a new accurate forecast. How can we be forecasting anything reliably if we can't talk about potential budget cuts, potential revenue raises and impacts to our current budget item? I should make that question clearer. If we can't forecast our budget today how can we possibly forecast the long-term impacts?

Yeah, I think part of it Council Member Means is just the timing of it because you know I think in August-September we'd probably have more information on closing the books for this current fiscal year which we don't have at this point. And then in the midyear at least we have in terms of next year's fiscal year period of time within the midyear we have some trends and things we could look at that provide us more of that information but I get it there's not ideal timing and all of this I think what we do know, though, is that for park maintenance obviously you've been subsidizing it and then we just expect that we have enough funding available to help cover those types of costs.

And then I know we kind of expect that hopefully we have a surplus and use some of that to address and allocate towards other projects perhaps we have in the future. That's kind of how we've been operating in planning and using our budget. There is no ideal time, as you stated to really know how much we have and how much we have available. I just think that in the budget workshop for January, February next year obviously will have more information than we have today in terms of what are we prepared to do for let's say the next two-year budget cycle? We'll just be in a better position at that point in time to make those calls.

So, I thought I heard you say August-September we would have more clarity and then January-February we'd have more clarity. Is January-February the date when understanding we're never going to have perfect clarity? Yeah of course. It is a cloudy lens we're looking through, I get it. When do you suspect we would have the most clarity in a given calendar year?

Yeah, I mean ideally it's typically during the budget process just because that point in time we would be ready to have all information as best available as we do every single year or now and every two-year cycle to have, be better prepared to have all that information presented to you. That's consistent how we've done in prior years Again, it is a big ask to have you guys make a decision on some of the direction we're taking on now. But without having to go through that more detailed process makes it a little challenging. Right? Yeah.

And you had said that we're going to try to move that budgeting process up from May. I apologize for belaboring the point, but what month or two months of the year would you say? I heard January-February and August-September. Not a gotcha question, but surely when would you feel most comfortable that we know what's going on with our budget?

No, it is January and February. That's actually when the organization starts the budget process. And typically it hasn't aligned with the council retreat or included the council retreat to determine your priorities but for this next cycle it will align that way.

I know it's questions and I can't make statements so I could say... How is that not a great idea? If we can't tell how short we are today, and the projection that with this fee assessment we're only going to buy ourselves two years. How do we know that we would be asking for the right amount of a fee assessment? It sounds like we are decidedly not asking for the right amount if our goal, Council Goal 3 is excellent city government and 3.1 long-term financial sustainability. Two years doesn't seem like long-term sustainability.

And when you say amount, did you actually say the amount of the exact assessment? Is that what

you're... Yeah. We came up with an assessment amount. The consultant came in and told us I will not get to my conclusions but we're asking for $80 or $90 or something along those lines. Why that number if it's not going to fulfill a long-term financial goal and why that number if we can't even estimate what our expenses are going to be until later well early next year?

Yeah, I mean for that number specifically. That will include as it will be presented to you any existing and future park maintenance that would be rolled into that actual amount right? And if that answers your first question there.

So the amount is going to Handle the deficit up to 25% for all the right reasons in the park fund in that first year Is that the correct assessment? I didn't I certainly didn't recognize that in the material that I had read previously

When you say the first year, I mean obviously it's going to be charged in that methodology applied for every year for that new assessment. Would it address the first years deficit or is that what you're asking for?

No, I was trying to determine how we got to that fee amount if we don't have clarity on what our expenses are We can't forecast anything. And what that number was set to fulfill in our overall budget.

Yeah, I think maybe you have a better idea. But yeah, we could only estimate what that future maintenance cost will be. Right? So it's not completely accurate. We have to still estimate what those will be.

And if that number...I can't remember offhand. Maybe somebody else does. If that number was $98 or something along those lines Does that fulfill? 75% of the park Expenses because I know 25 percent still has to come from From the city or from general funder from another fund. I think it's how its phrase but would that get us completely filled on the 75% based on current forecast

Yeah, I don't believe it's going to cover a full 100% still. I think we're still going to be short.

Yes? Jeremy is actually online as well and he could probably fill you in a little bit better but basically the number that was presented to you as part of the feasibility analysis I believe was based on 26-27 budget so it would cover 75 percent of the 26- 27 budget. Is that correct? He's here!

Yeah, sorry City Council. I'm a little under the weather so I'm attending via Zoom. Don't want to get anyone sick but that's correct. So the feasibility analysis was based on our fiscal year 26-27 budget and that's what was used to poll our community. Our assessment engineer has done the analysis for 27-28 which will be if this assessment went forward is when it would come into effect and then it includes a CPI increase, so it essentially should cover that 75% maintenance obligation for an extended period of time. And we can't assess more than that. We can only assess what we are actually going to use and so when our city manager said We've also included future maintenance costs. I believe it was Council Member Barrett that talked about future trails and are there any other future parks that we would be building in the future?

And so we've accounted for that, so we can't really talk about the park assessment of what's going to be proposed next week but it's a higher number than what we polled and that would allow for future maintenance needs. But again, we couldn't assess that levy Until those features came online, you know. Those trails were built. then we could assess that maintenance cost that we put into the engineer's report.

I think that answers it.

It does, thank you. I appreciate the clarity and I hope you feel better Mr. Laurentowski. I do appreciate you coming in by Zoom so you don't get us all exposed. So great, 75% of the 2026 budget as we expected it to be understanding that based on this report we can't actually estimate what the current year is going to be accurately. So I'll move on from that topic, but thank you.

If it... I will move on from that question. On page six, it mentions that based on this evaluation recommendation regarding optimal staffing and service delivery approach will be presented to the city council at a future meeting With the goal of balancing project delivery needs, operational efficiency and long-term cost savings. So that looks great. I think that it's a long question with some buildup. Council has given city staff a tremendous number of projects to try to balance both from a budget standpoint as well as a time standpoint I think we recognize it.

And having been absent at the meeting a couple times ago and watching, there was a call for perhaps less use of consultants. I love the idea that we'll do an evaluation of optimal staffing and service approach. I imagine that's going to have as it says below operational efficiency and long-term cost savings How are we supposed to make a decision tonight or next week if we have no idea what the operational efficiency or long-term cost savings are going to be when we're voting, when we will be asked to vote in the future and certainly consider with every project that we consider what the long term impacts are going to be. Should we not wait?

Should we not wait to have that information before being asked to make a decision? That's a long question I think it was for PJ.

Yeah, I know Council Member Means. Obviously we are in the process of putting together a presentation for you and analysis of our contracts and all our different contractual types of services that we provide to the city That is going to take a little bit of time just to kind of sort of put that together and present it to you in a comprehensive manner. And then evaluate that in comparison to hiring full-time, and what are the comparisons there?

not only at a finance level, but also what do we actually need to get these projects and these things done in the best way possible. And so those are things that again it takes a little bit of time for us to be able to put that together. I know puts you in a position where you don't have that information in front of you But you know that is something that Yeah, could could help guide the conversation and you know again at that future budget workshop that we're looking at but I know it doesn't help you right now in your decision so I

Appreciate the candor there And just so that I make sure that I heard it right, we understand the 75% of the 2026 budget for parks with that fee amount which is one possible way to address long-term financial plan. But even with that it only pushes the long term break-even point by two fiscal years. Is that correct?

Is that correct?

Thank you. I think it's my last question, thank you for the patience team. Chief Odeneth, for you, I was a big supporter of enhancing law enforcement presence. I still stand by it. I think one of the things that's great about our city is the public safety but We recently, relatively recently added that 40 hour car to our downtown district. Do you have any measurables?

Perhaps it's response times or any other measureables you can provide with us to show us the return on that investment perhaps the impact that those dollars have led us to because well no cause just a question mark

Yeah, absolutely. Every month we provide a report to the city manager and part of that report outlines specifically what the downtown liaison deputy has done as far as response. It is focused specifically on the downtown partners whether it be business or residents who live down there points of contact helping out in any potential public safety issues so I could provide you with the last 12 months worth of those reports that specifically address the downtown liaison deputy

Those numbers will make me feel good, but it's not necessarily going to help me get to the equation that I'm looking to do because I'm certain that great work has been being done as with every department. But before we had a specific 40-hour commitment to the downtown area, the downtown area was still being served and so I'm looking for the difference between response times overall could be Moorpark wide and where we are now with that additional presence. Is there anything like that

exist? You're not going to see a reduction in response times, but what you are going to see is that there's less pending calls. So the downtown liaison deputy is responding to calls downtown when available. But also addressing more what I'd call long-term public safety issues, whether they be parking issues, things that we wouldn't necessarily get calls for service. So I would be hesitant to provide you with a metric specifically as it relates to call for service response times because I don't think you'd be getting the true picture of what that deputy's doing

Fair, I accept that. Is there any metrics or measurements? If you're saying we can see a reduction in pending calls or an increase in number of positive contacts with the community, there's value to that too. What I'm trying to get to and I don't remember the exact budget number and I don't want to put anybody on the spot but what that 40-hour car cost the city It was a measurable, not a giant percentage but it could be measured in a percent of the city budget as I recall. Where can we measure the return on that investment?

Yeah, so I mean the cost is about for 25-26 about $323,000. And I can give you any of the metrics as it relates to responses that particular deputy has done as well as long term projects. I can tell you for example one of the projects they're working on right now is creating a graffiti abatement project. We wouldn't have the bandwidth to do that with the existing deputies and so having the downtown liaison deputy where we have seen an increase in graffiti vandalism, focused on a long-term public safety project like that allows us the bandwidth to do those types of things. So I can definitely put together a report that outlines more detail as far as not just calls for service but also addresses more the long term issues in the downtown space that we're addressing.

Yeah, I'd appreciate if I can have that before other items that I can't say come in front of us again. Certainly. That's all I've got for now

guys.

That

was just

page one. I'm just taking a

breather.

Yeah, Tom covered a lot. So no, it's good. It helps me refine the future questions. This first one I think is just on the projections. I appreciate the fact that you noted, Ms. Deavers, that we tend to be just really austere at the way that we look at things. I think it's great. I think it's good to be conservative You mentioned that we, for future projects, we don't project how much property tax. Smart, you know, don't count your chickens before they hatch kind of a thing. But for a project like Hitch Ranch, at what point in the budgeting process would you start to feel comfortable incorporating the projections of that? Like is it... Does that end up coming in the 27-28 year? When do you start to feel more comfortable making those projections?